The Council Keeps the Charter Pen
Seattle’s city council refused to pay for a freeholders’ election and voted to rewrite the city charter itself—setting up a fight over cost, legality and who gets to redraw city government.
At a special meeting of the city council in committee of the whole at City Hall yesterday afternoon, the members reached an almost unanimous opinion that Seattle should not hold a special election to choose freeholders to draft a new city charter. Instead, the council should do the work itself and submit the necessary amendments to the voters at the next regular election. The members argued that they were elected on pledges of retrenchment and charter simplification, that a special election would cost the city a large sum, and that grave doubts existed about the constitutionality of the recent legislative act providing for a charter commission.
Dr. Crichton reported that a senator from King County had said on the Senate floor that the bill would never stand in the Supreme Court. The council adopted resolutions declaring it unwise to incur the expense of a freeholders' election; directing the charter committee to proceed with revision in time for the people to consider the amendments before the November election; inviting citizens' organizations to submit suggestions; and promising reasonable notice and hearings.
Delegates James, Voigt, Kistler, Little, Gleason, Hurd, Chapman and Crichton and Aldermen Sweeney, Lovejoy and Clise were present. President Miller was ill, and Sweeney was elected chairman. The resolutions were adopted after lengthy debate. Crichton cast the only no vote, though he said he favored the resolutions with slight modifications; Sweeney, while explaining his preference for a freeholders' convention, did not vote. Chapman warned that a new charter concentrating power in one mayor or council chairman would overload any official, and Hurd said some of the council's "voluntary advisers" had no concrete charter plan. The meeting adjourned after ordering the amendments placed before the people as early as practicable.
“God help the man who was made mayor of the city if a new charter should give us a mayor who would be chairman of a single council, chairman of the police commission, chairman of the fire commission. Every burden would be placed on his shoulders.”
Seattle’s 1895 fight over whether to elect freeholders or let the council rewrite the charter is an early version of today’s debates over ballot costs, good-government reform and who gets to redraw the rules. The more things change, the more the language of retrenchment and simplification recurs.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.